Assume I am 'Fi'
If people assumed that I am 'Fi,' this is how they would interpret me:
"Socionics leaves something to be desired. People simply do not fit into these preconceived boxes."
"Socionics is basically pigeonholing people. And people should not be pigeonholed. Therefore, in reality, socionics is much more complicated."
However, that is in fact NOT what I am saying.
This is what I AM saying:
"Why are there 16 boxes, instead of 32 or 64 - or even 57? Why exactly 16?"
"Why do people fit into those exact 16 boxes in that exact way?"
"Why boxes? Why doesn't a spectrum suffice? Or maybe a completely different type of model?"
That is what I am actually saying. I just suspect people interpret me as saying the first two, when that isn't anything like what I mean - or maybe even because I dislike or get offended at Se, which isn't even what the theory says...
I would go so far as to say that the 'Fi' statements above are just diarrhea to me, if you want me to be quite frank...
Even the stuff about ethics/morals: once again: "Why does one's logic clash with one's ethics? I'll say it again: It clashes with common sense. In that case, why does the theory assume that?"
Therefore, I think the stuff about me being Fi - which I don't even identify with - is just rhetoric, and that's basically all there is to it...
Last edited by jason_m; 01-01-2020 at 09:02 AM.
a two horned unicorn renegade
Here's another one: assume in reality there is a huge number of types - but the number of types is odd. In this case, what happens with dual? Does someone not have a dual or do two types share a dual? For every person to have an exact dual, there has to be an even number of types. What is going on here then if there is an odd number? Now, apply this to my questions above...
Last edited by jason_m; 01-01-2020 at 09:27 AM.
@jason_m , I assume you’re saying this in response to people who’ve quoted statements like these to indicate you’re Fi-valuing?
I don’t know about Fi, but I think there’s plenty of indication from this thread you’re Te-valuing (or at least not Ti-valuing), which is the other side of the same coin.
When you say “assume there is a huge number of types — but the number of types is odd”, you’re discarding the sine qua non of Socionics: that is, its reliance on Jung’s writings about the psyche. Jung’s model was complementary; Ne couldn’t exist independently Si, and so on. Even if new types were added (somehow), there would always be an even number of types. Your other questions are similar — there are 16 types, for instance, because that’s the logical number of types you’d arrive at by following Jung’s model.
Your questions aren’t stupid (and even if they were, Ti people aren’t immune from stupidity), but they aren’t ones Ti people would be likely to ask. Once you start asking them, you’re no longer talking Socionics, and Ti is reluctant to be so imprecise.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 01-01-2020 at 09:49 PM.
Why 16? All data is comprised of associative (relative) and absolute components (2); rationalization is also either associative or absolute (2); processing is either open or closed-loop (2); and priority is either input or output oriented (2) so 2x2x2x2 = 16. Now, subtype is often mentioned, indicating an input/output imbalance which increases the possible number of categories to 48 but this does nothing but overcomplicate the perception of how data is perceived and processed. Fi indicates a type of data processing and shouldn't be related to ethics or morals - people shouldn't be pigeonholed because everyone acquires different baggage and we are what we eat, but the way a person would generically move data in and out is very likely finite.........
What's the purpose of SEI?
Jason, you seem to be talking about socionics as if it was some abstract thing. The number of types is in fact 16, that's just human nature. This is based on observation. Why they are 16 is hard to answer, because we don't know all the complicated evolutionary processes that has made the human mind what it is today. But Jung and Socionics give hints to the processes behind this. (the fact that we have complementary conscious/unconscious functions in the psyche for example). As Freelance said here above.
What if the number of types is odd? But it isn't. They are even.
People have said this before to you, but you really need to get back to basics and learn to observe the reality behind this.
A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
(Jung on Si)
Not sure what the topic of this thread is, though, lol. Is it how your statements differ from the Fi ones or is it regarding the validity of the questions you asked regarding socionics. Because to address the "why are there 16 boxes" question, I think it's kind of arbitrary. I agree with @Tallmo that there is a reality that socionics is trying to map, so 16 was likely the best way to describe that reality - it's not absolute though.